Posted
by
Soulskillon Thursday November 17, 2011 @02:46PM
from the could-have-fooled-me dept.

jfruhlinger writes "The ubiquitous EULA — reams of baffling text imposing draconian terms on software users — infuriate most Slashdot users and are routinely ignored by everyone else (until they suddenly cause trouble, of course). But it doesn't have to be that way. Several European countries are considering laws mandating user-friendly EULAs, and some companies provide them voluntarily."

Ahem, you actually have to *agree* to its obligations. You are granted a license, and there's a copyright holder:

Who has the power to enforce the GPL? (#WhoHasThePower)

Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders.

Might want to read a little further: it specifically [gnu.org] says you don't have to agree to it unless you want to distribute or modify it. And agreeing doesn't put any obligations on you, again, unless you distribute or modify.

The thing is that you don't have to agree to the gpl to agree that you do not have the right to redistribute the gpl-licenced product willy-nilly, since that is all ready covered by the law (where applicable). The law says there is copyright and a copyright holder. And you have to agree with the law. Or else.

The license is most certainly optional on GPL software - for the GPL v2, see sections 0 ("Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)") and 5 ("You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.").

For the GPL v3, see section 9 ("You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.").

If I do not wish to modify or distribute, I don't have to accept the GPL at all.

Anything created by lawyers, is not created for the public good. It is created deliberately confusing and inscrutable to further the goal of making more bullshit work for the leeches known as lawyers.

There's an old saying that goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Lawyers have taken this to its logical extreme: they have made the law so byzantine, so inscrutable, that it's impossible to understand what the fuck the law SAYS without consulting a lawyer. Therefore, ignorance is the norm, and th

It should be illegal to even write [draconian, unethical, and immoral] contracts or EULAs...

...I would like to point out that you did, in fact, have a choice: accept the contract, or do without the job. It's not much of a choice, admitted, but you did weigh the pros and cons of both options and decide to choose the option that sucked less for you in your circumstances.

FWIW, my initial terms of employment were similar, but when I addressed my concerns to HR, they agreed to reduce the terms to something a little less draconian. Specifically, projects outs

Sometimes the choice is between signing and starvation. Contracts should NEVER be unilateral- but I think they'd be a lot better if instead of being enforced by the courts, every contract dispute would have to be settled by pistols at 15 paces.

You might want to reconsider that; you as an individual only have two hands with which to hold pistol(s). The company offering the software has a small army of workers that it can draw on, as well as enough funds to buy your opposition full ballistic body armour if they so choose.

Either way, the choice is against you. At least with the current system, you're likely to come away with your lungs intact.

There are EULAs attached to pretty much everything. For almost all ISP's you sign a contract which is a EULA. You have to use some form of software to access the internet, by doing so, you are agreeing to a EULA for that software. So unless you see the interwebs as binary data scrolling across your eyes, then being translated by your brain into images, you've agreed to a EULA.

You have to use some form of software to access the internet, by doing so, you are agreeing to a EULA for that software.

Technically, the Xubuntu operating system has no such license agreement. One is not required to accept the GNU GPL until one begins to make and distribute copies of the software beyond those copies permitted by copyright law. But you're right about ISP terms of service.

"Now all we need is a good government to define "public interest" to be in the interest of the actual public of the people, not the corporations."

As one of the 50% of Americans who own stock in corporations, I wish you'd learn about them and who owns them. The corporations are the people, or at least a large number of them. People who think there's more to earning a living than someone sending you a paycheck - then complaining about it.

Corporations exist at the will of the state, thus at the will of the people. Supposedly this should be under the terms the people find beneficial to them. However, since the corporations have gained an independent voice in government as virtual people, the terms are now what is beneficial to the corporations, not the people.

The company is NOT a person, the people working there are. Yet, the government has seen fit to give corporations the rights of the individuals. I think you will find, as I have, that most people really don't give a shit about the corporation other than keeping it going so that they can do what they like to do and/or get paid. And yes, I own stock in quite a few companies.

I will complain until something is actually done about it

Also, you are completely clueless if you think your paltry 1000 odd shares of s

As one of the 50% of Americans who own stock in corporations, I wish you'd learn about them and who owns them.

Who owns them? The CEOs and board members who pay themselves exorbitant salaries, regardless of their performance and the huge supply of people qualified for their positions (pretty much anybody in upper management). A doctor responsible for lives and has been trained for years to do his job gets paid less, but we are to believe that these foxes guarding the henhouse are worth millions of dollars?

The corporations are the people, or at least a large number of them. People who think there's more to earning a living than someone sending you a paycheck - then complaining about it.

Are you talking about stockholders who sit on their asses and hope the stock price rises?

They are an attempt to form a unconscionable (in the legal sense) contract with thousands of people. And almost invariably they try to convince you that you have less rights than you do under the law. They are basically about eliminating fair use, because every one I've seen uses the leverage of copyright law.

Now, if this were about terms of service, that would be something. I'm all for terms of service that are legible by ordinary human beings.

Well I can see a valid use for a "This software is provided as-is" clause. It's clauses like this that are bad: "you can only use this yourself, never re-sell, rent, trade, and must only use it on one computer from the hours of 1pm-2pm with one hand tied behind your back..."

They are an attempt to form a unconscionable (in the legal sense) contract with thousands of people.

I don't think that they are unconscionable by default. Sure the vast majority (every single one?) that I've bothered to consult has been pretty draconian, but there is nothing inherent in the idea of a EULA that makes it unconscionable.

I suppose this article is trying to point to the possibility that "hey, they don't have to be unconscionable, so why don't we start trying to fix it so that they're not!"

They're non-negotiable contracts between unequal parties where the signature isn't even verified and the contract isn't presented until -after- money has changed hands. Nothing about them is conscionable

I don't think that they are unconscionable by default. Sure the vast majority (every single one?) that I've bothered to consult has been pretty draconian, but there is nothing inherent in the idea of a EULA that makes it unconscionable.

I am not a lawyer, but I do know this... The term "unconscionable" when referring to contracts has a very specific legal meaning. And by that definition, EULAs are inherently unconscionable. They can't help it. They don't allow negotiation of terms. They are 'agreed' to after money changes hands. The signature of the party who is under the most restrictions isn't even verified. They are, by the strict legal definition of the term, inherently unconscionable.

Yes, the terms could be very nice. But whether or not the terms are good for the buyer doesn't actually strongly figure into whether or not a contract is considered 'unconscionable' from a legal standpoint.

I would like to add the further point to the parent that EULA are typically bartering with something that it does not own or control. That is "Usage Rights". As the software developer and distributor they own the copyrights and they own the physical media. When they sell it, they give up their ownership of the physical object and still retain copyright. If the user of the software is not asking to copy and distribute, then copyright is not at issue. Granted for a service company like Facebook, usage rights

Several European countries are considering laws mandating user-friendly EULAs

While I think this is a great start, I think a better idea would be to take the common subset of clauses that both consumers and vendors can agree upon, and make them implied by law.

EULAs shouldn’t be an automatic, they should be an exception, for cases where something is radically different.

To an extreme, I don’t think that clicking “I agree” should even be legally binding. If you have some kind of special case, lawyers or at least something more substantial than clicking a button should be required. If your customers can’t be bothered, either learn to operate within the common set of agreed rules, or go into a different business.

Meh, you live in a messed up country, I don't. Swedish contract law contains a number of stipulations that EULA fails to uphold, so they're not valid contracts here. Instead most of what EULA covers is covered by the copyright laws.

They, like many other "contracts" aimed at end users, are simply there to scare you into compliance...Just because it has no legal weight, doesn't mean that a lot of people who don't know any better will feel compelled to comply with them.

It's not really a contract unless you can either negotiate the contract or get out of the contract. EULAs do not give you the right to negotiate the contract. However you _should_ be able to back out of the contract if you disagree with the provisions. The problem is that it is often cumbersome or impossible to do so; many stores or manufacturers will flat out refuse to give you a refund. When that occurs the EULA should be considered invalid.

Interesting link. Thanks for posting that! I hadn't realized that music sold on Amazon had such a restrictive EULA, forbidding resale. Unfortunately Google's new service sees to have the same problem. [google.com] Presumably they both have these terms because they were imposed on them by the record companies.

Yes personally, I get tired of seeing licenses that make no warranty, no guarantees, and that want no liability, should their software fail. This is kind of a no-brainer for me, especially for free or consumer-level software.

I would also add that a company must provide the old EULA, the new EULA, and also an exact diff of any changes they make to it.

And that should a contract/EULA contain a clause that's illegal, or unenforceable, or for instance against fair use, at the time it was written, that the entire

That's the way our EULA lawyer guy ruled on it for us (can't use), so that's the way we went. The concern was if someone showed a video of something through it to someone who we are charging for services, it could be in violation. (not that a normal company would go after another for that, but Real is pretty slimy... I worked for them doing tech support for a year when I used to live in Seattle. Thankfully as a non commission person I didn't have to trick people into staying subscribed to it)

Many small companies grab someone else's change some words here and there and toss it out sometimes saying nothing really.

In the situation I'm talking about, (free use in corporate environment) unless the EULA says it's free to use in that setting it doesn't work for us. Many don't mention licenses or being free at all, in which case there COULD be a required license somewhere...

When I bought IDA Professional, in the EULA it explicitly spelled out several things:1.) I an install it on any machine I own2.) I can make backups3.) I can reverse engineer the softwareIf only the rest of the world worked that way. They trust their users - and it inpires a level of respect, at least with me, where there is absolutely no chance I would share a copy.

How about a law that requires a company changing its terms of service to tell you exactly what the changes are and how they affect you, rather than simply saying that they've changed them, with a link to the new version (and a fat lot of good it'll do you, too)? Back when I had a PayPal account, that was one of the most annoying things about them.

A EULA is a form of 'contract' but, I always though contracts implied some form of negotiation, not just blind (enforced, un-yielding, etc. etc.etc.) acceptance. Who's negotiating for us? At work, our Contracts Department can ask a vendor to change a EULA and there's a chance it will happen but, good luck calling up XYZ Corp and saying, I'd feel better if Clause 4.3.1.2 said foo instead of bar...

Actually, contracts are a negotiation. I learned that when I signed my latest lease from my roommate who was studying for the Texas Bar exam at the time. He told me it was perfectly legal to cross out parts of the contract I didn't like before I signed it. Then if the other party didn't like the changes I made, they could draw up a new contract for us to sign. And we'd go back & forth until we were both happy with the arrangements.

You missed an option. Instead of going back and forth, either party can say 'this is my final offer, take it or leave it'. That is what the 'disagree' button is for. The EULA is their final offer. Take it or leave it.

Which is why, you should find the EULA in the installer package before you install it, modify it any way you wish, and THEN agree to the EULA when it is presented. If a EULA is enforceable at all, then you should be able to modify it before agreeing to it.

I returned a Sony TV partly because the EULA said I had to indemnify Sony if I violated the EULA or was even alleged to have violated the EULA. I didn't want to deal with possibly being on the hook for million dollar lawyer fees. I know that the chances of Sony getting sued because of my actions would probably be nil, and two it would be thrown out of court as unconscionable, but still, I thought the indemnify clause was crazy. This indemnify clause also said Sony would have to approve of any lawyers involved. Additionally the TV came with Yahoo widgets, and the EULA for Yahoo widgets said the license was non-transferable. I assumed this to mean that selling the TV would violate the EULA. The EULA required arbitration for any disputes. The entirety of the EULA gave Sony all the rights and the user none. Well, the TV that I exchanged it for looked better anyway, so it was a win win for me.

I canceled my Playstation Network account and sold my PS3 because of a EULA update in April. Many pages of EULA bullshit that you had to agree to, and I just got sick of it. It was the final straw after all the thuggish Geohot nonsense.

If we keep on agreeing to these EULAs they're going to keep on shoveling them down our throats.

The other day I was updating some apps on my daughters iPod and a message popped up that the EULA had changed and I had to accept the new terms. After scanning over the first page I got to the bottom that said page 1 of 63... This of course brought out the "laugh of disbelief" followed by "whatever" and a prompt click on "Agree".

I don't know why no one includes summary's at the top of EULAs. It's not like it's that hard of an idea to think of and I've yet to hear a single objection (though I'm sure/. can help with this). No one is actually saying you can't have pages and pages of precise details spelled out in pages and pages for the lawyers.

By the way, this is suggested on page 2 of the article for all of you who either didn't read the article, or refuse to bother going to page 2 of an article that has no reason not to be on a single page.

I can think of one objection: what happens if there's ambiguity between the summary and the mass of technical detail below it? If the summary is binding, then you will inevitably get conflicts in interpretation between the summary and the particulars, but if it's not binding, you still have to read the whole damn thing anyway, so why muddy the water with a summary you can't rely on?

Now as it happens I think it's still worthwhile to use a summary (indicate that the summary is to be used to resolve ambiguitie

As the article says something about European countries I'll limit myself to that subset of humanity.

Most European countries should explicitly invalidate Eula's as a legal and binding contract, as a matter of fact I don't think many countries or courts in Europe would even consider them as such right now.
There are some countries that already have stipulations about the readability of consumer contracts and according to the issuers the Eula is such.

Plus the EU law gives you the explicit right to return any product bought over the Internet within a 7 day grace period.

I feel the same way about everything I purchase. That $0.99 candy bar? I want to sign a real pen-and-paper contract; I mean if you're so lazy that you fall back on implied verbal contracts, then why bother me? I'm happy to leave you and go get my candy bar from someone who cares enough to sell out even the most mundane of contracts in ink, with signatures, and lawyers.

For enterprise class software and systems licensing makes sense but telling an end user they do not own a product they paid for will get you horse whipped, tarred and feathered. The average end user doesn't understand the concept but if you tried to license a car to them and then showed up one day and tried to take the car away because they modified it in some way that violated the license they would bust you up. If more average users understood (and cared) about what that EULA meant we'd see some occupy EU

...and the reason i stopped reading them is because there is NOTHING you can do about it if you disagree outside not using the program.
Say you don't like a clause in it and call up the company? You're just going to get laughed at and have them hang up.
Not to mention the only person who really even knows what's in it is the lawyer they hired.

We already have laws to cover most of the things EULAs are concerned about, making EULAs superfluous. The rest just is contradictory to existing laws and is unenforceable, so it doesn't apply. Not to mention that it's a one-way contract (in that you can't redact, as you can with normal contracts), so maybe it's illegal in and of itself. I'm glad I don't use software that has EULAs.

Text of software license
This is where the bloodthirsty licensing agreement is supposed to go, explaining that Interactive Easyflow is a copyrighted package licensed for use by a single person, and sternly warning you not to pirate copies of it and explaining, in detail, the gory consequences if you do. We know that you are an honest person, and are not going to go around pirating copies of Interactive Easyflow; this is just as well with us since we worked hard to perfect it and selling copies of it is our only method of making anything out of all the hard work. If, on the other hand, you are one of those few people who do go around pirating copies of software you probably aren't going to pay much attention to a license agreement, bloodthirsty or not. Just keep your doors locked and look out for the HavenTree attack shark.

Text of disclaimer
We don't claim Interactive EasyFlow is good for anything -- if you think it is, great, but it's up to you to decide. If Interactive EasyFlow doesn't work: tough. If you lose a million because Interactive EasyFlow messes up, it's you that's out the million, not us. If you don't like this disclaimer: tough. We reserve the right to do the absolute minimum provided by law, up to and including nothing. This is basically the same disclaimer that comes with all software packages, but ours is in plain English and theirs is in legalese. We didn't really want to include any disclaimer at all, but our lawyers insisted. We tried to ignore them but they threatened us with the attack shark at which point we relented.

Suppose I work for a company and the IT department installed a piece of software on that computer. Must I abide by the EULA?

Or the reverse: Suppose I install a piece of software, must the company abide by the EULA, or just the individual? What if the EULA states that the publisher can remotely access my workstation or use our company trademarks in their promotional materials? The individual installing and using the software probably doesn't even have the power to make those decisions. S

I have a question about the checkbox in installers. What we usually see is an unchecked "I agree" and "Next" is clickable only when the checkbox is ticked.

I teach a course about designing software, some parts of the course are about distributing applications. I also sell software for a living.

This week I held a class in which I discussed installers and the user experience of the installation process. My advice was to remove unnecessary steps: drop the checkbox and rename "Next" to "Agree and continue" (or s

Hahaha, you think so? Despite what many people think, a large part of a lawyer's job is figuring out (and fighting over) what people actually mean when they write agreements, legislation and the like in "clear, easy to read" language.

Drafting contracts and laws is a lot like programming; language that is clear and easily readable may not be the most powerful or effective language to use. "Plain language" languages are easy to use, but hard to do anything useful in. Those that are useful usually have a great

So... when involving lawyers to find edge cases and holes in the agreement, how does it save you money if most contracts have minor or major issues resulting in costly legal disputes? Unless you have a perfect iron-clad legal agreement some lawyer properly motivated ($$$) will find a way to cost you money disputing it. If you are small, a mega corp could likely tie you up in court until you are broke even if you have the perfect contract agreement and would win in the end.

Well, I have no numbers to back up a claim, so keep your salt grains handy, but from what I've seen, money spent up front on lawyers tends to save you money down the road on more lawyers. What having a good agreement does is makes it more expensive down the road to try to break the agreement. The harder your lawyer has to work to find a loophole in the contract, the more you have to pay her. The more you have to pay her, the stronger your incentive to simply fulfill your side of the bargain.

If you are small, a mega corp could likely tie you up in court until you are broke even if you have the perfect contract agreement and would win in the end.

Not saying slimy lobbyists and politicians (or their staffers) don't intentionally obsfucate bills for their own gain, but there is a reason for the dense & hard to decipher language (namely, you're not trained to be able to read it). From TFA, I rather like the "Human Friendly Summary" sitting next to the legalese.

This right here. I'm surprise at how many computer geeks think that making laws into plain English will accomplish anything. It's like, hey, fine, let's require you to do all of your programming in simple and plain English, rather than these arcane scribbles and symbols and grammars!

Legal documents are dense legalese for a reason: a bug in a computer program means a computer crash, but a bug in a legal document means a loophole. Everyone wants to close loopholes, but no one thinks about how that causes the

That's a crock of shit. There are bills out there that are nothing but legal rhetoric when they could have just as easily said "No corporation can force an employee to sign a contract that would in any way hinder their ability to gain employment after they leave the corporation" "A corporation is defined as any business that is legally registered as a business in any state".

Holy shit, I just re-wrote non-compete laws in less than 90 pages....AND people can understand it.

And then it turns out that corporations are not allowed to make the employee wear shoes because there's a hippie-owned store 1000 miles away who only hires the barefoot--and the law didn't include any clauses about the hindrance being common, nearby, or even in the same field of business.

This right here. I'm surprise at how many computer geeks think that making laws into plain English will accomplish anything. It's like, hey, fine, let's require you to do all of your programming in simple and plain English, rather than these arcane scribbles and symbols and grammars!

These "arcane scribbles" is the legacy of C and people who were too lazy to type a few characters more than absolutely necessary. This is not the only way to write software. Programming languages like Pascal are, for most cases,

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are fairly short considering the extent of ground they cover. Turns out that some previous US Politicians felt that laws should be understandable to the general populace.